A systematic review on how to conduct evaluations in community-based rehabilitation
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
PURPOSE: Community-based rehabilitation (CBR) must prove that it is making a significant difference for people with disabilities in low- and middle-income countries. Yet, evaluation is not a common practice and the evidence for its effectiveness is fragmented and largely insufficient. The objective of this article was to review the literature on best practices in program evaluation in CBR in relation to the evaluative process, the frameworks, and the methods of data collection. METHOD: A systematic search was conducted on five rehabilitation databases and the World Health Organization website with keywords associated with CBR and program evaluation. Two independent researchers selected the articles. RESULTS: Twenty-two documents were included. The results suggest that (1) the evaluative process needs to be conducted in close collaboration with the local community, including people with disabilities, and to be followed by sharing the findings and taking actions, (2) many frameworks have been proposed to evaluate CBR but no agreement has been reached, and (3) qualitative methodologies have dominated the scene in CBR so far, but their combination with quantitative methods has a lot of potential to better capture the effectiveness of this strategy. CONCLUSIONS: In order to facilitate and improve evaluations in CBR, there is an urgent need to agree on a common framework, such as the CBR matrix, and to develop best practice guidelines based on the literature available and consensus among a group of experts. These will need to demonstrate a good balance between community development and standards for effective evaluations. Implications for Rehabilitation In the quest for evidence of the effectiveness of community-based rehabilitation (CBR), a shared program evaluation framework would better enable the combination of findings from different studies. The evaluation of CBR programs should always include sharing findings and taking action for the sake of the local community. Although qualitative methodologies have dominated the scene in CBR and remain highly relevant, there is also a call for the inclusion of quantitative indicators in order to capture the progress made by people participating in CBR programs. The production of best practice guidelines for evaluation in CBR could foster accountable and empowering program evaluations that are congruent with the principles at the heart of CBR and the standards for effective evaluations.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,012 | 0,031 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle